$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 11.09.2025 Pronounced on: 15.10.2025 + BAIL APPLN. 573/2018 KARTI P CHIDAMBRAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr. Akshat Gupta, Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Mr. Sidak Singh Anand, Ms. Madhushruthi Neelkantan, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, SPP with Mr. Harpreet Kabi, Mr. Vashist Rao, Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Mr. Vishesh Jain, Mr. Syamantak Mudgil, Mr. Anant Prakash Mishra, Ms. Riya Sachdeva, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. CRL.M.A. 37402/2024 MODIFICATION OF ORDER BAIL CONDITIONS 1. The present application has been moved seeking the modification of bail conditions, wherein the applicant needs to seek prior permission from the trial court for travelling abroad imposed vide order dated 23.03.2018. Brief facts: 2. The present case arises from FIR RC 220 2017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 registered by the CBI against M/s INX Media Pvt. Ltd., its directors Indrani and Peter Mukerjea, Karti P. Chidambaram, M/s Chess Management Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd., certain officials of the Ministry of Finance, and others for offences under Sections 120-B/420 IPC and Sections 8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging receipt of excess FDI beyond FIPB approval and unauthorized downstream investment. Investigation revealed a criminal conspiracy involving P. Chidambaram, then Finance Minister, his son Karti P. Chidambaram, and others to regularize such irregular investments, causing undue benefit to the companies and loss to the exchequer. A charge sheet was filed on 17.10.2019 against multiple accused while keeping investigation open under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., and cognizance was taken on 21.10.2019. Letters were issued to six foreign jurisdictions, with replies received from three. The petitioner was arrested on 28.02.2018, granted regular bail on 23.03.2018 by this court with conditions including prior permission for foreign travel and surrender of his passport. Besides the present case, the petitioner is also facing prosecution in other CBI cases, namely RC 220 2022 E 0006 and RC 220 2025 E 0001, as well as the Aircel-Maxis case. An application has been moved by the applicant now seeking the modification of the condition no. (i) “The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court; he shall deposit his passport with the Trial Court, if not deposited so far.” in the judgement dated 23.03.2018 vide which the applicant was granted regular bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court. Submissions of the Applicant: 3. Mr. Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the instant application has been preferred seeking modification of the bail condition imposed vide order dated 23.03.2018 by this court while granting the applicant regular bail, which presently requires the applicant to obtain prior permission of the Trial Court before travelling abroad. It is submitted that the applicant, being engaged in extensive professional commitments relating to the sport of tennis through his company M/s Totus Tennis Ltd. in the United Kingdom, is required to travel frequently for business meetings, tournaments, and other administrative matters. It is further submitted that the applicant’s daughter is pursuing her Ph.D. at the University of Oxford, necessitating his occasional visits to the United Kingdom for personal reasons as well. Owing to the repeated requirement of seeking permission for each trip and delays in adjudication thereof, the applicant’s professional and personal engagements stand seriously disrupted. In all the cases that the applicant is required in, the investigation qua the applicant is over. 4. It was further submitted that the applicant has an impeccable record of compliance with all conditions imposed during previous permissions to travel abroad and has never violated any term or failed to return within the stipulated timeframe. It was further pointed out that despite numerous travels permitted by various courts, including the Supreme Court, the applicant has never sought adjournments before the Trial Court on account of travel and has regularly attended proceedings, even through videoconferencing. The contention of the respondent that the applicant is a flight risk was assailed as untenable, inasmuch as this Court, while granting regular bail, had already recorded a finding to the contrary. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore continues to be maintained with the Trial Court as security for his travels. 5. Furthermore, it is submitted that in another pending matter, the Ld. Trial Court itself in Ct. Case No. 05/2024 vide Order dated 24.05.2024, while accepting the applicant’s bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C., had imposed a modified condition requiring only prior intimation, not prior permission, before travel. It was therefore submitted that the same modification be extended in the present case as well, particularly since the applicant’s conduct has been bona fide and without blemish. Reliance was placed upon various precedents wherein similar conditions have been modified or waived, including Nikunj v. State of Maharashtra SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3192–3194/2024 and this Court’s orders in Avnish Bajaj v. State Order dated 22.07.2005 in Crl. M.A. No. 9696/2005 in B.A. No. 2284/2004, and Anil Rai v. CBI Order dated 08.09.2008 in Crl. M.C. No. 2801/2008, G. Vetrivel Sami vs. CBI (2012) SCC OnLine Del 1656and Bina K. Ramani vs. State (2010) SCC OnLine Del 452. Submissions of the Respondent/CBI 6. Mr. Sharma, learned SPP for the respondent vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the condition requiring prior permission of the Trial Court before leaving India was imposed after due consideration of the gravity of the offences and the peculiar facts of the case. It was pointed out that the present FIR RC 220 2017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 was registered against the petitioner and others for offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 9 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving allegations of receipt of excess Foreign Direct Investment by M/s INX Media Pvt. Ltd. beyond FIPB approval and unauthorized downstream investment. The investigation revealed a criminal conspiracy involving the petitioner, his father, the then Finance Minister and others, which resulted in undue pecuniary advantage to private parties and corresponding loss to the Government exchequer. 7. It was further submitted that charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance taken, while further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. remains pending as formal letters have been sent to multiple foreign jurisdictions, replies to which are still awaited. 8. It was furthermore submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple criminal cases registered by the CBI, including RC 220 2022 E 0006 and RC 220 2025 E 0001, apart from being an accused in the Aircel-Maxis case, thereby reflecting a continuing propensity to engage in criminal misconduct. It was submitted that in these circumstances, the condition restraining the petitioner from travelling abroad without prior permission is both reasonable and necessary to ensure his availability for trial and to safeguard the integrity of ongoing investigations. 9. Furthermore, the contention that such condition causes inconvenience was characterized as untenable, since mere inconvenience cannot constitute a ground for relaxation of bail conditions, as held in Disha A. Ravi v. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl. M.C. 6914/2023. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner is a flight risk, and any dilution of the existing condition would seriously prejudice the progress of trial and investigation, consequently, the present application, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Analysis and Conclusion 10. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the material on record. The applicant seeks modification of the bail condition imposed vide order dated 23.03.2018, which requires him to obtain prior permission of the Trial Court before travelling abroad. The primary ground urged is that the applicant, being professionally engaged through his company in the United Kingdom and having family ties there, needs to travel frequently for professional and personal purposes. It is not in dispute that the applicant has been granted permission to travel abroad on multiple occasions, both by this Court and by the Supreme Court, and has duly complied with all such permissions without any default or misuse. Perusal of the record reflects that he has always returned within the stipulated time and has never sought adjournment of proceedings on account of travel. Furthermore, the applicant continues to maintain a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore with the Trial Court as security for his travel abroad. 11. It is well settled that bail conditions, though necessary to ensure the fair administration of justice, must not be so onerous as to infringe upon the liberty of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. The object of imposing such restrictions is only to secure the presence of the accused during trial, not to curtail his legitimate business or personal pursuits. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Supreme Court observed that the purpose of bail is not punitive but to secure the attendance of the accused when required. 12. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597, it was held that under Article 21, the procedure established by law through which life or personal liberty is taken away must be just, fair, and reasonable. Permitting otherwise would amount to putting a premium on the inaptness or callousness of the Investigating Agency and also working to the detriment of the fundamental rights of an undertrial enlarged on bail. The purpose of such a bail condition, to ensure the accused submits to the process of law, can be achieved by modifying the requirement of surrendering the passport or seeking court permission, and instead directing the furnishing of a title deed or other suitable condition to secure compliance. 13. In Nikunj v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Supreme Court held that the primary purpose of imposing conditions while granting bail is to ensure that the accused participates in the trial and not to unduly restrict legitimate activities such as business travel. Observing that the petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and regularly complied with bail conditions, the Court found the requirement of seeking prior court permission for each foreign trip to be unnecessarily onerous and prejudicial to the business. Accordingly it deleted that condition and directed that the petitioners need only intimate the trial court of their travel details before going abroad, the relevant paragraph reads as under; “We have considered the nature of the rival submissions and also the nature of the case pending against the petitioners. The fact that in connection with the business purposes, right from 2022 onwards, the petitioners are undertaking foreign journeys in connect with their business and other purposes, as is evident from the travel details. It is also a fact that petitioners have joined the investigation and have been complying with the conditions. It is also to be noted that the very purpose of putting conditions in an order granting bail is to ensure the participation of the grantee in the trial. No doubt the condition viz. "whenever the applicants are desirous of travelling abroad they shall seek appropriate permission from this Court" would cause considerable prejudice in the smooth conduct of their business by the petitioners. Hence, it stands deleted. However, we order that the petitioners shall travel abroad only after intimating the Trial Court in respect of journey they intend to undertake including the period and place(s) of travel and only after such proper intimation to the Trial Court that they shall go abroad.” 14. In the present case, the investigation qua the applicant stands concluded, and the charge sheet has been filed with cognizance already taken. Further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. concerning letters of request, which are formal requests from a court to a foreign court for judicial assistance pending in foreign jurisdictions, does not require any personal participation by the applicant. The CBI’s apprehension that the applicant is a flight risk is unsubstantiated, especially when the applicant has, over the years, travelled abroad multiple times under judicial permission and returned promptly within the stipulated time. It is not the case of the Respondent/CBI that the applicant has in any manner violated the condition of the bail. The continued imposition of the condition requiring prior permission for each travel has evidently caused procedural hardship and undue restriction on his professional liberty, despite there being no instance of misuse of concession. The order dated 23.03.2018 vide which the applicant was granted regular bail notes that there appears no possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice as his parents are senior advocates, he has a family to take care of, has roots in society, and is not a previous convict. 15. The Court takes note of the order dated 25.03.2025, wherein petitioner restricted his prayer for relaxation of such condition of travel to only eight countries, namely United Kingdom, Spain, France, Austria, Italy, Germany, United States of America and Saudi Arabia. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances and following the consistent judicial principle that bail conditions may be varied to serve the ends of justice and prevent unnecessary curtailment of liberty, this Court finds merit in the present application. Accordingly, condition no. (i) of the order dated 23.03.2018 is modified to the extent that the applicant shall be required to intimate/inform the Trial Court and the Investigating agency/Respondent of his full travel itinerary, duration, and contact details at least two weeks prior to each foreign travel while travelling to United Kingdom, Spain, France, Austria, Italy, Germany, United States of America and Saudi Arabia, instead of seeking prior permission. However, the petitioner shall regularly attend the court proceedings and shall make no attempt to protract the trial. All other conditions imposed vide order dated 23.03.2018 shall remain unaltered. 17. The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of in the above terms. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. OCTOBER 15th, 2025/na BAIL APPLN. 573/2018 Page 1 of 10